Now I will say a general rule concerning the Torah, both the words of the written text and the Mishnah and in all the Books (of the Babylonian Talmud) and the Baraita and Mekhilta. That if we find in one of the [above-]mentioned something that contradicts one of the following three [things]: Firstly, common sense (1) or a verse contradicting another verse through reason (2) or contradicting a taught tradition (3), then we should try to rectify it all, according to our capabilities: trough [seeing it as] a parable, or by the addition of a letter or word, in the way of our language. And if we can’t correct it [according] to the truth, we will say that this wisdom has disappeared from us because our mental capabilities are limited and the knowledge of our generation is lacking. And the matter that we exhausted (brought up?) will be like a book that is laid down and abandoned. And God forbid that we should say it is falsehood and a lie. We should also not believe that it is [to be understood] literally. Rather, let us believe that the one that wrote down this secret knows it (the secret). Because there are in the words of our ancestors secrets through parables and riddles that those who hear it will not understand and they will [only] be known to those who investigate it [properly].

What we learn from here from the Ibn Ezra, a supposed ‘rational thinker’: If something in our tradition is difficult to understand: a) first try to see if it can be understood as an allegory, b) then correct the text by adding one letter or word, and if this all doesn’t work: c) say that we can’t understand it because our brains are limited.

In other words, his approach is:

The Written Torah and the Talmudic books are always true, regardless of the facts.

If they don’t make sense, make sure it will make sense by saying it should be understood in another way or tampering with the evidence!

If this doesn’t work, just say: We can not understand it. Rational thinking ends here.

In short: a more ‘Rational’ Rabbi like the Ibn Ezra admits that he is not really being rational.

So tell me: how on earth can the representatives of Orthodox Judaism expect us to take the Torah, Gemara, etc. seriously?!?

9 comments:

> So tell me: how on earth can the representatives of Orthodox Judaism expect us to take the Torah, Gemara, etc. seriously?!?

Different epistemology. Orthodox Jews, as a movement if not as individuals, derive all truths about the world from the Torah. You and I have an empirical epistemology, and ultimately derive all truths about the world from the senses.

Each side assumes that it is of course correct. Without agreeing to how we know things, it’s impossible to have a conversation.

Of course, we can feel smug knowing that OJ use our epistemology in their day-to-day interactions with the world, at least informally, while we have no need to resort to theirs for anything in our lives.

I think there's much to be said for the approach described. Assuming (as Ibn Ezra obviously does) that there is value to the religion and the belief system, how does one resolve a contradiction or something that-- for whatever reason-- one cannot accept. Some would argue that one must simply assume that the Torah is factually correct, and that logic and reason are wrong. Ibn Ezra allows that what the Torah says may well not be literally true, and may be a parable pointing to a greater truth. This strikes me as a very liberal interpretation, all things considered.